About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
CNN 3
CNNW 3
CSPAN 3
CSPAN2 3
MSNBCW 3
MSNBC 2
CNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
directly at odds with house speaker john boehner. >> could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? we've seen talk about a possible compromise that could leave rates the same but cap deductions for high-income earners. is that something that's acceptable? >> no. >> not at all no, way? >> no. the preponderance made it very clear in his campaign that there are not enough -- what you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. you cannot go forward -- you have to cut some investments. if you cut too many you are hampering growth, you're hampering education, investments for the future. >> and even thousands of miles away it appears president obama is still focused on those negotiations. while touring a royal monastery with secretary of state clinton in thailand the president was overheard mentioning the budget talks to a monk. the president later clarified his comments -- >> he's not any monk. >> no. >> he has some big i vestments in the stock market. >> he later clarified his comments at a news conference. >> yes, we were working on
of those things need to be in play. when john boehner talks about raising revenue he's willing to do that if it only comes in the form of tax reform, not raising tax rates, but actually lore erring tax rates, closing loopholes, broadening the base and you will get more money coming into the treasury. the other part of the equation that is so important which has not been part of the public conversation is cutting spending, not just slowing the rate of growth but actually cutting spending to try to get this deficit under control. i know the republicans don't control the narrative on this but i want to hear more from them on that side of the equation. jon: julie our nodding your head you must agree. >> i think both sides need to come to the table. enough already with these sort of, you know, showmanship, game man ship, these are people's lives that are at stake in this economy. monica is right in that the president does control the upper hand at this point. if nothing is done all the bush tax rates will expire. you have exit polling coming out of the recent election saying two-thirds of
boehner is even interested in? >> i think it is probably something that he might consider. this is how negotiations work. congressional "fight club." they stake out their positions and sort of move closer together as they come together and actually meet and discuss this. there are couple options what they can do on the table. president signaled perhaps it doesn't have to be all about getting rates to clinton era levels. perhaps getting revenue from other places. i think that would be healthier, broader tax reform kind of deal made. i'm not sure whether they're all savvy enough to make that deal. i mean. martha: seems to me that is the major issue here. that is what john boehner was hinting at. he is suggesting that if you remove some of the loopholes that is a tax increase on the wealthy in this country. i feel like that is a message that has gotten across in perhaps a clear enough way. if you do same thing for u.s. corporations and roof move tax loopholes and don't end up in a situation where ge doesn't pay anything and small business pays through the nose. why isn't that kind of refo
of congress. republicans john boehner and mitch mcconnell and democrats nancy pelosi and harry reid. >> we had a very constructive meeting with the president to talk about america's fiscal problem. >> we all know something has to be done. >> it was good. i feel confident that a solution may be in sight. >> we're prepared to put revenue on the table, provided we fix the real problem. >> tax hikes and spending cuts could go into effect simultaneously if no deal is reached on the fiscal cliff by the end of the year, both sides have said they are willing to compromise. house speaker boehner says republicans realize that neither side will get everything it wants. >>> exactly one week after he abruptly resigned as head of the cia, david petraeus was back on capitol hill. he met yesterday behind closed doors to brief lawmakers on the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. according to lawmakers who were there, petraeus now says the attack was an act of terrorism and not the result of a spontaneous anti-western demonstration as initially reported. four americans died in the benghazi
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
the talks and house speaker john boehner suggested the parties could reach broad agreement on revenue targets and savings from entitlement reforms to avoid the immediate budget cuts. the leaders said they would meet again after thanksgiving. all right, congressman mather, before we get to this political question, because i think the political question is really important. i think some of the stuff we saw in the election year really was the product of election year dynamics. and in a positive way. >> that's why we have elections. >> that's exactly right. people say that's politics. that's also known as democracy. that's also known as accountability. there's nothing wrong with it, right? before we get to the politics of that, and george i want to bring you in on that question, substantively, where do you want, what do you want to see? i mean if you're to say jerry mather, i make you emperor of america for -- for -- or emperor of these negotiations and you get to like sign the document and that's what we get, what is the end point you would like to see? >> the end point i would like to s
connell and john boehner's people sort of drawing their lines in the sand. that's not really happening even though that is sort of by far much sort of bigger story as far as what's going to happen in the country. as far as -- and priority list for both the white house and congress. >> do you think they also get that at the white house? that as long as -- as much as they may be getting hurt or not by the islamist people are talking about benghazi, it enables some room for the white house to get involved in the negotiations as well. >> it allows them to negotiate this without sort of a spotlight on fiscal cliff story which is -- you know, a story that has about six weeks left in it before some -- before taxes go up on everyone and significant spending cuts happen across the country. not just the military. >> you've been covering the hill for awhile in addition to the campaigns. do you get the sense that this will be the time when they say okay, they've reached some agreement on the tax out on the revenue side and republicans eat i
. and despite that, john boehner believes that a solution is possible. take a listen. >> i've outlined a framework for how both parties can work together to avert the fiscal cliff without raising tax rates. if you've look closely at what the president had to say and look closely at what i've had to say, there are no barriers here to sitting down and beginning to work through this process. >> when it comes to those tax hikes, though, the president saying that 98% of americans would not see their taxes go up, that 97% of small businesses would not be impacted at all. he does see some room there to close loopholes for some tax reforms but he doesn't believe that that's enough to make up that trillion dollars, and that the math simply doesn't add up. so what the president wants is a comprehensive plan so that middle-class americans are not hurt. zoraida? >> let's move on to the heated back and forth over u.n. ambassador susan rice. republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham say they would actually try to block rice from being promoted to secretary of state should she be nominated.
. john boehner still in the house for the time being at the treasury. the president is back in the white house and harry reid is in the senate with a few more seats. why should i believe this would end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> because again i'm not going to try to talk to you in optimism but let's look at what's changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging for the first time in this debate in public that it's agreed to increase in revenues as part of an agreement that helps restore fiscal balance. that's a very important change. you can debate on what motivated that change, and of course it's true that approach has been a popular very substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit on a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform and putting it off indefinitely is not good for the country. that's important, too. and i also think again if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying with many elected representatives are saying there's a lot of
, speaker boehner had pushed at the urging of many of us and invited prime minister netanyahu and gave the best speech here in congress. it helps when a nation's enemy sees an ally siding with them. on the other hand, when a nation's enemy sees a strong ally, the united states, turning on an ally as this administration had with president mubarak and people wanting to see israel gone from the map, take power. it encourages israel's enemies. this administration also had relations with gaddafi. he had blood on his hands from prior years. not a good man. but he had opened up his country, aban dopped any nuclear weapons pursuits -- abandoned any nuclear weapons pursuits and became an ally. i have seen individual family members of gaddafi here in washington to meet with administration officials and lo and be hold, year and a half or so ago, this administration sides with the enemies and at the time, we knew al qaeda was contained within the revolt and we sided with the al qaeda-backed revolt to drive out gaddafi. that appears to have inspired the violence in tunisia. so we have seen israel's
boehner actually said it well. he said the mandate from the election of last week is for us to find a way to work together on solutions to the challenges we face as a nation. i can't agree more. elections have consequences and our ability to avert the fiscal cliff in which expiring tax cuts and across the board spending cuts are on the course to derail this economy requires us to respect that directive from voters. yet once again, lines are being drawn. you just heard it. over what types of revenue will be considered or what cuts are considered too steep. i hope was not the only one astounded by the comments of the c.e.o. of the american petroleum institute who recently said, quote, the oil and gas industry will not be singled out for punitive repeat, unquote. how fascinating. perhaps i could introduce him to the federal work force, our federal employees who are so far the only group to be singled out for punitive treatment to the tune of $75 billion of deficit reduction. they understand the principle of shared sacrifice and have patiently been waiting for everybody else to actually share
republicans. listen who what house speaker john boehner said about that throwing cold water on it. >> at this point i think that the standing committees of the house whether they be the oversight committee or the intelligence committee are working diligently on these issues, and at this point i think that's appropriate. >> now, what john mccain and his colleagues are arguing is that there's too much stove piping going on. there are too many committees, and twoul today is a good example. there are hearings going on all over capitol hill and then probably will continue to be. they think it all should be streamlined into one committee, but, suzanne, using the term watergate, using the term coverup, saying what did he know, when did he know it, talking about the president, not exactly a way to get bipartisan support for something that, you know, democrats clearly don't want. it is absolutely -- you mentioned at the beginning, very, very tense, particularly between these two old rivals, john mccain and president obama. >> not the way to bite -- get the bipartisanship going. okay, dana.
a guy before i worked for romney i worked for boehner in the majority leader officer, i called up the digital guy tell me about twitter. how it's going work. he said you don't need to know it. it's not a big thing. here we're now, i notice during the campaign so much of what we did was driven from the bottom up through twitter. and -- even when i was on the plane. we would do the different gaggle. she would do it on a bigger plane. air force one. we call pear force one. i would got back of the plane and gaggle for fifteen or twint minutes. by the time i would come back i would come back on twitter and say it made news. >> people responded and taked you on twitter. >> when you say people you don't mean people you mean reporters. >> or people. [laughter] reporters are not people. >> that was on the free to be you and me. the reporters are people. but you mean this was the kind of back stage conversation you were watching playout on twitter? sometimes real people. it was more important how the journalist were using twitter. >> yeah. it became a incredible news. you could see the jour
experiences during the first four years of obama. when obama and john boehner said down to negotiate very soon, will the gop give a little on this? will they get enough so we can get a resolution? my guess is no. i do not think the defeat was as clear enough to signal that kind of change. we do see if you people like bill kristol saying why are we [unintelligible] it is not -- the economy did great. there is a belief that there is an automatic relationship between the level of taxation on the wealthy and economic growth. you look back at american history, there is an inverse relationship over the last 80 years between level of economic growth and taxation on the wealthy. what will happen? we might sail over the fiscal cliff. that phrase invented by ben bernanke. but relax. the fiscal cliff is the kind of thing that only exists if washington allows it to happen. washington sometimes seems like a school where the teachers set the deadline and then change them. if we do still over the fiscal cliff, there are little maneuvers the treasury can do to make sure that we do not, even if sequestration a
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
it off track when there were in fact very close. i think boehner has been very clear. i think revenues are on the table. they are at the moment drawing a line on tax rates, but we will see where that goes. the last time, you are right, didn't work and we were not facing quite the same set of circumstances we are facing today so i'm cautiously optimistic although i will offer to say lastly that people sometimes say okay, it looks like simpson-bowles, everything in between zero and $4 trillion we could end up with all kinds of outcomes that may be less than i would like and maybe less than all of you would like but at least something. i'm hoping it is more over here but i don't know. >> and steve, so we are gathered here to talk about u.s. global competitiveness. how important is resolving these issues to the american position on the global economy? >> first of all i think it's important not just our position in the global comment about our position in the world. admiral mullen who was the previous chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said our greatest national security threat was our f
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)